We noticed Father Jones recently and rather cluelessly brought up a mass-murdering nutjob who was never an MRA, never talked like an MRA, was peripherally involved in (and then left) the PUA community, and was a fan of The Young Turks. This essay by Jim Muldoon helps explain to the perpetually clueless why such comparisons aren’t just unfunny, they’re mendacious, malicious, and stupid.–DE
Chris Gethard last year gave a video rant to what she called “men haters.” She was referring to the women’s movement, which she decided to address after the killings by Elliot Rodger. She seems to believe young women’s complaints solely centre around not getting laid and men being allowed into night clubs while they wait outside. She calls it “the movement for villainising men” and we can only hope, for her sake, that she updates her research skills before she writes anything of importance.
Her advice for young women is to “chill out” and not get “guns and methamphetamines” from the internet. Those who follow this sage advice might not get utopia, but they are promised by Gethard to be just “fine.” Presumably she will give some kind of refund if this doesn’t work out.
She then amuses herself by declaring that there should be a law which stops women who post on “one of those message boards” from ever finding love. She actually doubles over whilst laughing. Generally, comedians don’t laugh at their own jokes. Maybe Gethard hadn’t heard that one before.
But, let’s look a little closer at what Gethard is saying. There are two options. The first is that the young women who write on “those message boards” are just like Elliot Rodger. These young women, then, are disturbed and irrational, if not insane. They are certainly dangerous. How does mocking them and calling for them to be banned from ever having sex help?
I’m not saying that Gethard has a responsibility to help. You can’t make someone responsible for something they can’t do. But she is deliberately and directly speaking to these women, and she is choosing to mock them.
Gethard, then, has a responsibility to stop helping.
The other option, of course, is that Rodger, being mentally ill, is not representative of the young women who write on “those message boards.” In which case, how does associating them with Rodger, and then calling them names for not having boyfriends, turn into entertainment or a serious message?
Either way, there is nothing funny about it. It seems to me that Gethard is manufacturing easy targets and then giving them all the sarcasm she can muster. Presumably this same clown would tell us that she doesn’t believe in doing Irish jokes, or Jewish jokes, because they are using stereotypes to put people down.
In a similar vein, Brydie Lee-Kennedy, as part of SBS’s Comedy section, invited readers to “Let’s all have a laugh at the women’s rights movement.” This “comedy” involves Lee-Kennedy claiming to have found a bunch of Gethard’s losers at various forums. He takes snippets of fairly inane conversations and makes sarcastic comments about the women who participated in them.
Again, MRAs are just date-less losers who have nothing better to do than sulk about it. It is worth considering his view of MRA’s in some detail as the first site he chooses to visit in his “research” is A Voice for Women.
Imagine someone with this view of MRA’s coming to the home page of A Voice for Women. The first thing to note would be that there are articles written by a number of authors. Some of these authors should immediately jump out as not fitting the stereotype. There are men, gay women and black women. Even among the white, middle aged, straight gals there are some who are married.
That surely has to rate a WTF moment or two.
Also, the articles are considered opinion pieces and serious analyses of current events. Here is where you might find something of the philosophies that guide the movement. It’s possible that Lee-Kennedy might not agree with some of the issues raised. But, if so, why not take some of the articles to task?
Instead, he heads for the forums where people just bang away at the keyboard, sometimes after a few beers (or sometimes more) and have a conversation. Taking snippets out of these conversations removes all context, and it is unfair to these individuals, as well as the movement, to then hold them up for scrutiny and derision.
So, instead of taking the MRM to task on their claims of female disposability, for example, he wants to make sarcastic comments because some gal says, as part of a conversation:
“Gimme a hard-working, mature, sensible man who is just regular man any day (with freckles preferably)”
Whether or not you believe she is on the right track (seems alright to me), clearly it is her choice to make. The reference to freckles is somewhat odd, but it might make more sense if we were part of the whole conversation. But, even if she does have a particular penchant for freckles, so what?
“I have freckles! New girlfriend alert! SHE WILL CONSIDER SUCH!”
This is Lee-Kennedy’s feigned response to the discussion. It is clear from his tone in the rest of the article that he would not consider her as a potential date. In fact, from the rest of the article, it is clear that Lee-Kennedy assumes these women have never had a date, and, like Gethard, men should avoid them at all costs.
His evidence for their loser status? Only the circular logic that they are writing on the site for losers, so they must be losers, and we know it is a site for losers, because losers write there.
The vacuousness of his piece is astounding. He deliberately sets up the gals at the various sites to seem like idiots, then pilliories them for being idiots.
So why does any of this pass for comedy?
It doesn’t. It’s actually just a bunch of rallying cries for the faithful. Masculists are to listen to their ideology being reaffirmed and be comforted. The infidels and heathen are to be scorned, for they will never have equality in this life or the next.
But why would comedians choose to be politically correct spokespersons for the cause rather than be funny?
Consider Lee-Kennedy’s employer, the Australian government’s SBS. Here the left-leaning Masculist agenda is the religion of choice. Had Lee-Kennedy’s article been a serious attempt at looking at the MRA’s it never would have been published. Even if it was riotously funny.
But, even those not directly employed by the government have the same approach. Why?
For almost everything in the arts world, other than the top-tier performers, the work is subsidised in one way or another. Often, these come in the form of grants or cheap venues (or both) from the government. In other cases, the funding comes from charities. Therefore, satisfying the bureaucrats or the charity organisers can be more important than satisfying the general public. Again, in most cases Masculism will be the defacto religion.
Even those not explicitly for Masculism are afraid to cross it lest they get bad publicity. This is why we have such few good comedians. They actually don’t have to be funny to get a job. In fact, concentrating on humour rather than politically correct commentary could cost someone a career.